Religion - The Bible. Real Or Not Real?

[queenie]

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here having read all the previous posts, but surely the mainstay of any religion is Faith - belief without proof?

 

If you are debating the bible as a historical document then that's completely different.

Basically, I am trying to link physics and our understanding of physics to religion here - and show that the two are actually connected - even though it is a difficult concept to understand, never mind try and explain.

 

I'm basically saying in all the stuff above - that there are so many parallel universes (and in physics all these universes are connected by 'strings' - by string theory) that: in some universes the bible is the exact truth; in others it is a half truth; in another a complete lie - it just depends which universe you are in at the time. You have to try and understand the concept of 10 dimensions (as recognised by physicists) to begin to understand why all these possibilities exist IMO.

 

As it happens, in this universe I think the bible is mostly rollocks. So I can only say I am agnostic (and not religious, nor an atheist), because in another universe in these 10 dimensions the bible is the full truth, and as a string connects all of the universes together, that could, no matter how tiny the probability, eventually affect me.

 

It is mind bogglingly complicated stuff, but trying to understand those 10 dimensions has opened my eyes - I think.

Yeah I've read a lot of science fiction myself. Very entertaining and thought provoking - a bit like religion...

 

As for the Bible - is it historically accurate? Or do you just have Faith that it is true? Those are completely different questions.

[Bananaman]

I've never read him - maybe I should. That is purely my trying to explain how I understand the effects of existing in 10 Dimensions.

 

Haven't read any of his stuff post 97, but anything up until then is..............hold the......you've never ever read any Pratchett?

 

Really?

[Albert Tatlock]

I've never read him - maybe I should. That is purely my trying to explain how I understand the effects of existing in 10 Dimensions.

 

Haven't read any of his stuff post 97, but anything up until then is..............hold the......you've never ever read any Pratchett?

 

Really?

No, my own independent conclusion.

 

I have read and studied a lot of physics (Heinz Pagals the best I have to say), but after feeling I got a grip of what 10 dimensions actually means, it made things a lot clearer to me. For example, how to explain to someone what the fifth dimension is, and how they would see it if they could experience it (basically it would be like looking down and being able to travel down 'a tunnel' if you like, for example, where you would see yourself as an egg at one end and an old person at the other - but you could stop at any point and talk to yourself at that point i.e. be a time viewer/traveller, in literally, your own lifetime).

 

Maths is the sticking point for most in physics, even for the best quantum physicists, but the concept of understanding 10D doesn't require maths, it requires a different understanding which if you watch the video many times suddenly you understand, dimension by dimension, until an 'infinite' number of co-existing universes and possibilities makes full logical sense. Not easy, but well worth the effort I think.

 

 

 

.

[VinnieK]

There are infinitely more points between one and two than there are integers - you cannot match up every integer with a point between one and two - there would be infinitely more points which could never be matched.

,

 

That's absolutely bang on the money!

 

Time only exists as it does in this universe. There may not be time in many other universes, where initial conditions were vastly different

 

I'm not entirely sure of how this fits in with or contradicts the statement I made. If you have a universe, or infinitely many universes in which there is no time then there are no events, since these are functions of time and space - in other words they contribute nothing to the random number generator scenario* and those that do are collectively incapable of generating the set of all real numbers at any given point in time, so some outcomes will always be impossible.

 

As for all things being possible in an infinity of universes, well the simpler example of a standard random number generator that just churns out whole numbers casts such notions into doubt. If the statement "all things are possible in an infinitely large system of multiple universes" is true, then it must be possible that a fully functioning machine of this design will churn out a fraction, or an irrational number, or will turn into Stalin and start singing Personal Jesus by Depeche Mode, which is an impossibility by the design of the machine. I suppose that strictly speaking a case could be made that such a spontaneous and baffling metamorphosis isn't expressly forbidden given the 'right' conditions (whatever they may be), but such an argument is unappealing (at least in my opinion) for a number of reasons - not least because if such transformation is possible, then I resent having to live in what must be one of the most boring and law-abiding universes in the multiverse (if such a thing actually exists).

 

*I'm actually wondering how this fits in with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. If the universe branches off into multiple universes corresponding to each observable outcome, then it should branch off into a continuum. So then it's a question of whether such a machine is truly possible, which I suspect depends ultimately on whether space-time is discrete or continuous. Jesus, QM has a lot to answer for.

[VinnieK]

Maths is the sticking point for most in physics, even for the best quantum physicists, but the concept of understanding 10D doesn't require maths, .

 

I have to take issue with this. Actually understanding ten dimensions requires a hell of a lot of very high level maths, and string theory itself is virtually entirely mathematical in its origin and much of its subsequent development! This is why there's a significant amount of crossover between string theory and pure maths research, especially in the area of quantum gravity.

[Bananaman]

Meh! Mere words!

 

Seriously though does my chokra say I'm going to get a Range Rover?

 

I really really like the new ones.

 

 

Really really like them.

[VinnieK]

Seriously though does my chokra say I'm going to get a Range Rover?

 

Really really like them.

 

I had to look up chokra. The best definition I could find was: an offensive term for a boy, especially one who works as a servant.

 

You decadent soul!

[Albert Tatlock]

Maths is the sticking point for most in physics, even for the best quantum physicists, but the concept of understanding 10D doesn't require maths, .

 

I have to take issue with this. Actually understanding ten dimensions requires a hell of a lot of very high level maths, and string theory itself is virtually entirely mathematical in its origin and much of its subsequent development! This is why there's a significant amount of crossover between string theory and pure maths research, especially in the area of quantum gravity.

I don't mean there isn't maths required to explain it, or for some people to undertand it, and certainly prove it, by any means. I meant, I understood it non-mathematically - i.e. conceptually, as I think others could too. The fundamental leap you need to make IMO is to forget numbers and number generators, and for one moment imagine infinity as being finite and having been all around us from the start, where, if you like, all the counting was done at once, every outcome was created at once and every outcome (between 0 and 1 prob) exists any time you look for it anywhere in the multiverse - because it's already there. There are no increments, or increments between increments to look for or even discern anymore - they are all there - covering the infinitely large to the infinitely small - represented in thinking as being finite. Every combination of overlap is there, no gaps at all. i.e. Anything and everything.

 

Before you do that though, I suggest you watch the video numerous times, making sure you understand how they conceptually move from a single point, to one dimension, to two dimensions - and look at how the possibilities are built. But look conceptially not mathematically and look for paths and how they eventually build up to cover all possibilities.

 

I think you are stuck with the maths and only looking at it within your boundaries of trying to explain it through numbers - and are stuck in this universe. I still think you are missing some fundamental points that I am trying to make, by limiting the debate to numbers, infinity and setting artificial boundaries for yourself that don't actually exist in a 10 dimensional existence.

[VinnieK]

The fundamental leap you need to make IMO is to forget numbers and number generators, and for one moment imagine infinity as being finite

 

I think you might have to expand on this matter slightly. What in precise terms do you refer to as "infinite" in this setting, or finite, for that matter?

 

I think you are stuck with the maths and only looking at it within your boundaries of trying to explain it through numbers - and are stuck in this universe. I still think you are missing some fundamental points that I am trying to make, by limiting the debate to numbers, infinity and setting artificial boundaries for yourself that don't actually exist in a 10 dimensional existence.

 

Thanks for clarifying, though I have to say that these boundaries do exist within 10 (or 11, or any of the other alternative multidimensional models for the universe). I also think that you may be underestimating the mathematical basis of and hence the context in which these theories exist. It's not just that it's required for expository purposes or the rigour of proof, it's that the entire endeavour of string theory is mathematical in nature. These theories are derived entirely from mathematical constructions, as opposed to physical observation and to date their structure remains in large part entirely mathematical (as well as hypothetical!). The description you cite regarding the fifth dimension, for instance, is actually a consequence of the mathematical field of topology being applied to certain features of the defining mathematical structure of string theory, similar applies to the video in question.

[Rog]

The Ship of Fools web site has had a competition to find the worst biblical verses - here's one I find objectionalble, but check out the other 9!

 

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18)

One of the problems with the ecumenical Bible is that it is in essence Christianity©. In otherwords a document constructed with the bits that suited Constantine’s wants from a religion.

 

Another problem, this time with the books based on the writing of Paul, is that Paul was running his own agenda in the region.

 

Christianity as a religion that follows exclusively the teaching and actions of Jesus actually makes up only a small part of what we know as The Bible, or more properly for most people the King James version.

 

If the totality of The New Testament is considered it really should be called ‘Paulianity’, a thing that when Christians© are reminded of drives them simultaneously into denial and also often a really bad temper.

 

They will rant on about ‘divine inspiration’ and v9isions on the road to Damascus when in MY opinion what really took place was that Paul saw the direction public opinion was taking, jumped on the bandwagon, and exploited it big time. As it happened much of what he wrote in his letters could be fitted very well into the agenda that Constantine was running - and so into The Bible they went.

 

Add to that the amount of allegorical phrases that are in The Bible and the situation gets even more confusing regarding Christianity, especially when individual verses are pulled out in isolation as is done in The Ship of Fools and similar resources, though taking them in the context in which they appear often clarifies the matter.

 

In the case of 1 Peter, ignoring for the moment who or what Peter actually was, the verse that people have difficulty with regarding slaves must be taken in context as it relates to the need for a Christian to ‘show good witness’. In other words demonstrate the strength of his faith but especially show that Christianity is not a religion that runs counter to Civil law.

 

If 1 Peter 2 :13 – 23 is read what comes out is a message that includes this as a concept but also how by following the same principle Jesus was not only an example but also how Jesus created such a power and following. The verse ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’ relates to the split that can and must be shown between Church and state and thereby lies a tale considering it was Constantine that appointed the first Pope and so established a church / state relationship that provided mutual support and also mutually assured destruction of one ever split from the other.

 

(That split did eventually come about with Martin Luther as the initiator and ‘Enry the eight as the final implementer.)

 

The same form of ‘church’ / state relationship is mirrored today in Saudi Arabia where the mutual back scratching between the Saudi’s and the Whabbi Islamic sect creates either a perfect storm, a Devils Brew, or an ideal co-relationship depending on your viewpoint.

[Albert Tatlock]

The fundamental leap you need to make IMO is to forget numbers and number generators, and for one moment imagine infinity as being finite

 

I think you might have to expand on this matter slightly. What in precise terms do you refer to as "infinite" in this setting, or finite, for that matter?

 

I think you are stuck with the maths and only looking at it within your boundaries of trying to explain it through numbers - and are stuck in this universe. I still think you are missing some fundamental points that I am trying to make, by limiting the debate to numbers, infinity and setting artificial boundaries for yourself that don't actually exist in a 10 dimensional existence.

 

Thanks for clarifying, though I have to say that these boundaries do exist within 10 (or 11, or any of the other alternative multidimensional models for the universe). I also think that you may be underestimating the mathematical basis of and hence the context in which these theories exist. It's not just that it's required for expository purposes or the rigour of proof, it's that the entire endeavour of string theory is mathematical in nature. These theories are derived entirely from mathematical constructions, as opposed to physical observation and to date their structure remains in large part entirely mathematical (as well as hypothetical!). The description you cite regarding the fifth dimension, for instance, is actually a consequence of the mathematical field of topology being applied to certain features of the defining mathematical structure of string theory, similar applies to the video in question.

I think most people, if asked, would define 'infinity' as e.g. 'even if you counted forever, there would always be more to count'. In other words there are always more paths and always more probabilities to take into account even when you have considered all the paths and probabilities you can imagine, or through maths can work out and prove.

 

My point is simple, and is that in ten dimensions, all of the paths and possibilities already exist, and yes, the paths go on 'forever' but they are already there and certain, and every possibility is there - especially when you get to thinking about the 8th, 9th and 10th dimension. Again, I make the point that people try and understand the mathematics based only on the laws of our universe, when literally there are an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of initial conditions and laws.

 

Perceiving infinity is key here, either you can see infinity 'as everything - plus more', or, as I now do, see it as 'everything' i.e. being extremely big and seemingly going on forever, but encompassing all possibilities and probabilities. So in at least one of the universes (and even in a conventional 'infinite' number of universes) whatever you want to be true will actually be true, just as in an infinite number of universes it will not be so.

[Terse]

One of the problems with the ecumenical Bible is that it is in essence Christianity©. In otherwords a document constructed with the bits that suited Constantine’s wants from a religion.

 

Another problem, this time with the books based on the writing of Paul, is that Paul was running his own agenda in the region.

 

Christianity as a religion that follows exclusively the teaching and actions of Jesus actually makes up only a small part of what we know as The Bible, or more properly for most people the King James version.

 

If the totality of The New Testament is considered it really should be called ‘Paulianity’, a thing that when Christians© are reminded of drives them simultaneously into denial and also often a really bad temper.

 

They will rant on about ‘divine inspiration’ and v9isions on the road to Damascus when in MY opinion what really took place was that Paul saw the direction public opinion was taking, jumped on the bandwagon, and exploited it big time. As it happened much of what he wrote in his letters could be fitted very well into the agenda that Constantine was running - and so into The Bible they went.

 

A decent way of exploring this - and the influences of Greek philosophy - can be found in The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman.

[Chinahand]

in ten dimensions, all of the paths and possibilities already exist, and yes, the paths go on 'forever' but they are already there and certain, and every possibility is there - especially when you get to thinking about the 8th, 9th and 10th dimension.

Albert, I really don't get why you believe there are "all possibilities and paths" in ten dimensions.

 

And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly infinite does not mean all possibilities - there are an infinite number of even numbers, but you can search that infinity for ever and a day and you will never find an odd number.

 

You really are adding far far to much to a mathematical description - just because that description has infinity in it doesn't mean your twin brother married Madonna and was crowned the King of Mann after challenging Tony Brown to a mud wrestling match.

 

That does not logically follow - Try this

attempting to explain!

[jimbms]

Fantastic 7 pages of debate on a work of pure fiction designed to con people

[Albert Tatlock]

in ten dimensions, all of the paths and possibilities already exist, and yes, the paths go on 'forever' but they are already there and certain, and every possibility is there - especially when you get to thinking about the 8th, 9th and 10th dimension.

Albert, I really don't get why you believe there are "all possibilities and paths" in ten dimensions.

 

And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly infinite does not mean all possibilities - there are an infinite number of even numbers, but you can search that infinity for ever and a day and you will never find an odd number.

 

You really are adding far far to much to a mathematical description - just because that description has infinity in it doesn't mean your twin brother married Madonna and was crowned the King of Mann after challenging Tony Brown to a mud wrestling match.

 

That does not logically follow - Try this

attempting to explain!

Sorry, I disagree with that video, and you know I'm not trying to prove there is or not god along some dimensional path - I am simply saying I do not know, and that in a 10 dimensional existance none of us do. This video is a very obvious anti-religious attempt to link physics as we understand it (in 5 dimensions) to knock religious people full stop, it is actually arguing against 10 dimensions and superstring theory. I take issue with Dawkins on this issue too, in that he as much pushes atheism as religious nutcases push god, when he can't prove logically there isn't a god, though I agree it is unlikely and a low possibility wrt our universe - but even a low probability dictates that he should say he is agnostic.

 

I didn't say I could prove, nor provide evidence that in 10 dimensions all possibilities exist and are certain, but they are present in the 10 dimensional existence because paths exist for all of them. This is what I think you are failing to understand. You are basically saying these paths don't exist, or there will always be more, I am saying they do, in theory.

 

In that video, for starters, the amazon river and a wooden spoon could exist in the box - if the box was our universe, or enclosed a portion of it i.e. including the earth, and I was looking at it from afar. Similarly countless impossible beings (from our perspective) could exist, again, because in 10 dimensions they could exist as all paths exist for them including the impossible ones.

 

I think you really need to understand that 10 dimensions actually bind infinity to the number 'everything' - including every path there possibly is i.e. I don't think you are getting a grip on infinity actually having an 'ending' if, theoretically, all paths are covered in 10 dimensions. This started to jump out at me when watching the 10D video, but admittedly took me many views of it to understand the impact of each 'fold' as it steps through each dimension to describe the next and the additional paths that it creates each time.